Tashkent state university of Law English for Law students

 

Section 2. Reading. (10 points)

 

Read the text. Answer the questions below.

 

                      

The difference between a good lawyer and a successful lawyer

 

In an ideal world, great lawyers would also be successful lawyers. But sadly, many great lawyers are 

not successful (and sometimes the most successful lawyers aren’t necessarily great lawyers).

 

Being  a  great  lawyer  requires  a  combination  of  high  intelligence,  strong  *

analytical

 and 

1) 

advocacy

 skills, and an ability to communicate effectively (both verbally and in writing).

 

---

Great lawyers typically have a passion for a particular legal specialty or  practice area, and master 

excellence as an expert, which fosters a high level of 

2) commitment

 to their work.

 

They also understand their client’s objectives and advocate on that basis (not on the law in isolation). 

For example, if advising a commercial client, great lawyers will appreciate the business, as well as 

legal, outcomes of their arguments.

 

But even if born with all of these qualities and 

3) determined

 to pursue genuine expertise, you aren’t 

guaranteed success, because at some point you will probably have to market your “greatness” and 

promote yourself.

 

Additionally,  if  you’re  working  in  a  firm,  you’ll  need  to  sell  your  services  and  attract  clients—

something requiring an entirely different skillset from those outlined before.

 

Attracting clients will necessitate 

4) networking

, relationship building, public speaking, and learning 

how to influence and motivate, to name just a few!

 

For example, during my career, I managed both Mark and Catherine. Catherine  was considered a 

“great” lawyer; while Mark was very good, but not quite to Catherine’s level.

 

But, “greatness”  without business is of little value to the firm. With this in mind, Mark nurtured 

relationships with contacts and clients and spent much of his free time enhancing his marketing and 

networking skills.

 

In contrast, Catherine almost entirely ignored this side of her career. A great technical lawyer with a 

stellar reputation for doing high-quality work, she (naively) thought this should be enough.

 

Eventually, and inevitably, the firm expected Catherine to 

5) contribute

 more than her legal talents, 

and bring in business. Since she hadn’t developed the skills to do so, she was unable to rise to the 

task. By that time Mark not only had the necessary skills, but he also had business of his own.

 

As such, he was made partner. Unluckily for her, Catherine was not. So the answer to your question 

is  that  every  lawyer  can  strive  for  greatness—but  you’ll  need  more  than  the  obvious  law-based 

qualities to succeed.